Smartphones Reignite the OS Wars

Smartphones have become the preferred computer of the masses. Sales surpassed those of personal computers in 2010, having grown over 50% per year for several years. Nearly 500 million smartphones shipped in 2011. This radically shifts the terrain in the consumer operating system competition that was, for years, firmly decided in favor of Windows. This article analyzes the New OS Wars.This chart shows how, over the past three years, smartphones have decimated Windows’ long OS dominance in popular computing.

Tablets play a role in this change, too. TechCrunch projects iPad sales of 66 million this year. Forrester Research optimistically predicts that tablet sales will explode to 375 million yearly by 2016.

Smartphones are killing off dumb feature phones. The shrinking light blue shading at the top of the chart below shows the rate at which feature phones are losing market share to smartphones in the U.S.:

The chart also shows that Android and iOS market shares grew greatly, while those of Palm OS/webOS, BlackBerry OS, and Windows Phone/Mobile dwindled.Now, let’s consider the future. Here is International Data Corp’s projection for world smartphone OS market share in 2015, contrasted with real 2011 numbers. These estimates show Android and iOS doing well over the next several years, with minor decline for BlackBerry OS and major decline for Symbian OS. The key point here — one that some other predictions dispute — is that Windows will dramatically come back in the market.

Winners

Google Android and Apple iOS are the big winners in the new OS wars. Results over the past two years show dramatic growth for both. IDC projects that Android will gain another 5 to 10% market share by 2015. They believe that iOS will retain about the same market share in 2015, but this still represents a cummulative annual growth rate (CAGR) of 17.9% for the OS, given the rate at which the total market is growing. (These predictions exclude tablet sales, an area in which Apple currently has a huge lead.)

Windows?

Windows is the big question mark in all smartphone predictions. Microsoft’s smartphone market share has atrophied over the past couple years and is only about 5% of the worldwide pie today. In response, in February 2011 Microsoft inked a deal with Nokia, which agreed to replace its popular Symbian OS with Windows Phone. The duo debuted their first Windows Phone 7 devices in 2011. Analysts were generally positive about the products.

Microsoft’s goal is to create a third “smartphone ecosystem” to compete with Apple iOS and Google Android. To that end it has not only signed on Nokia but also other partners including HTC, Dell, Samsung, Acer, Fujitsu, and ZTE.

One challenge Microsoft faces is whether it can get developers on board to create a viable universe of apps and downloadable content. TheNew York Timesestimates that Windows Phone has over 70,000 apps, versus 600,000 for Apple and 400,000 for Android. Beyond the numbers, there is the question of whether Windows Phone has the right apps: those the public wants. Microsoft pays developers to join in. While some analysts see this as a sign of weakness — which it is — I also see it as an astute move. Some companies with Microsoft’s history might be too inflexible or arrogant to pursue this necessary strategy.

Another issue is whether the Windows brand is a draw or a liability. Microsoft believes it’s a big plus. They’ve kept the Windows name and have even gone so far as to combine their smartphone and laptop/desktop operating systems. But it’s possible smartphone buyers will see Windows as a legacy OS rather than a cutting edge offering. (Do you want IE on your phone? How about Windows malware?) My feeling is that the Windows brand will attract consumers and turn off the technically-oriented.

The Microsoft – Nokia partnership presents interesting asymmetries. For Nokia, it’s do or die. They’ve bet their company on this. In contrast, Microsoft could survive a failure. It is diversified with its sales of personal computer, enterprise, and gaming software. The two companies have different geographic strengths. Nokia sells best in Europe and Asia, whereas Microsoft’s trump card has always been its U.S. monopoly. Will these two companies synergize? Or is this a mismatch?

My guess is that consumers will give Windows Phone a fair test. If the software is appealing and featureful, and if the apps are those consumers want, there is room for a third smartphone ecosystem to grow and prosper.

Niche Systems

BlackBerry OS — Only a few years ago, “BlackBerry” was synonymous with “smartphone” among North Americans. But failure to respond in a timely fashion to the dual challenges of Apple’s iPhone and Google’s Android are slowly but surelyreducing RIM’s market share.

A recent article titled “RIM To Give Up Most Consumer Markets” quotes RIM CEO Thorsten Heins as conceding the consumer smartphone market in order to concentrate on its business customers: “We plan to refocus on the enterprise business and capitalize on our leading position in this segment… BlackBerry cannot succeed if we tried to be everybody’s darling and all things to all people. Therefore, we plan to build on our strength.”

If RIM indeed concedes the consumer market, BlackBerry OS will lose market share faster than the above IDC projections. RIM could end up with a strong niche serving business customers.

Symbian OS — Symbian OS has a larger presence in Europe and Asia than in the United States. Symbian’s market share will recede as Nokia pulls its support from the OS in favor of its deal with Microsoft for Windows Phone. Nevertheless, over 400 million Symbian phones have been shipped over the lifetime of the OS.

webOS —webOS was introduced by Palm, Inc., as a successor to Palm OS in 2009. Hewlett-Packard acquired webOS in April 2010, intending to use it in smartphones, tablets, and printers. Since then HP has backed off its aggressive plans, and in December 2011, it announced it would open source webOS.

Does open source webOS have a future? It all comes down to whether OEM’s use it and developers accept it. I believe that if Microsoft can grow a Windows smartphone ecosystem, a fourth ecosystem won’t be viable. WebOS will be confined to niche status.

Bada, Tizen, and Others — There are many other smartphone OS’s around, including Samsung’s Bada and Tizen (evolved from MeeGo). Like webOS, these could be useful to consumers and profitable for vendors, but I doubt any will achieve the major market share required to become a third smartphone ecosystem. All will be niche products.

Summary

Smartphones are now the preferred computer of the common man. Sales are exploding; soon almost everyone will have one. Smartphone operating systems hugely impact overall OS market shares. iPads and other tablets will also have an affect. After years of stasis, the rise of the handhelds is shaking up the somnolent market for personal computing operating systems.

Google Android and Apple iOS are the big winners in this OS shakeup. BlackBerry OS and especially Symbian OS appear destined for lesser roles in the future. Samsung has a good niche with Bada. webOS and Tizen might become niche products or they could fail altogether.

The big question is whether Microsoft and its partners can nurture a third smartphone ecosystem. If so, we’ll have three dominant standards and a handful of popular niche systems. Otherwise the Android/iPhone duopoly continues, with small market share for Windows, and larger possibilities for niche alternatives.

Agreed, also to me the term ‘computer’ equals a general purpose computer not particularly focused on one task and able to perform practically any computer related task, hence I have a hard time labeling Smartphones as ‘computers’, to me they are phones on which you can also play games.

If we are calling smartphones ‘computers’ then by all means all types of videogame consoles should earn the moniker ‘computers’ aswell.

I rarely use my iPhone to make calls or send traditional text messages. Making calls gets a very small slice of the usage percentage pie.

Who takes notice of how well a phone makes calls when shopping for a new one? Most people look at the apps, the camera quality, Internet speed, storage memory. Even if you place calls on a regular basis I’m sure most people also use it for a lot more.

But isn’t that how most people use their “general purpose” computers as well?

I’ll certainly grant you that most of those who has computers (by my definition) at home do not actually need these general purpose computers but can do fine as long as they can surf the web, play some games and do instant messaging and this is what we are seeing now with the decline of general purpose computers versus smartphones,pads etc. I am not arguing against that. I’m arguing about labeling them as ‘computers’.

I think your definition of ‘communication’ is much more apt, and as such we can say that portable communication/gaming devices is being largely preferred over general purpose computers these days, which in turn is because the possibilities offered by a general purpose computer far exceed the needs of most end users.

I just don’t like how you change the name of the whole system based on how its used. If I use a hammer to tenderize a steak, its still a hammer, not a meat tenderizer. I actually use my smart phone to do general purpose computing. I write (simple) python scripts, open ssh sessions to remote computers, edit photos and music, use the calculator to solve algebraic problems, create todo lists, save and retrieve recipes, in addition to all of that communication stuff. For me it is a general purpose computer. There isn’t much I couldn’t do on or with it ( except those that require communication with incompatible hardware)

I just don’t like how you change the name of the whole system based on how its used. If I use a hammer to tenderize a steak, its still a hammer, not a meat tenderizer. I actually use my smart phone to do general purpose computing. I write (simple) python scripts, open ssh sessions to remote computers, edit photos and music, use the calculator to solve algebraic problems, create todo lists, save and retrieve recipes, in addition to all of that communication stuff. For me it is a general purpose computer. There isn’t much I couldn’t do on or with it ( except those that require communication with incompatible hardware)

D’oh, [raises hand] I do. You know, it s smartphone Since there’s an internet connection wherever I am (home, work, friends, coffee shops, bars, now even on buses, trains, etc.) I almost never use the xG data connection on my phone, and I restrict using net-based functions of my phone to when I have wifi, and most of the time I’m minutes or let’s say an hour from a place where I can have that. When I need phone voice communication I use my phone, and that’s quite a lot of times. I only use text-based stuff (e.g. e-mail) if it’s long, needs to be on record, it isn’t time critical, needs attachments, and similar situations.

That doesn’t mean I don’t use it for other functions, e.g. writing small notes, using calendar functions, chacking the weather, etc. I don’t use facebook et al. on my phone though, that’d be a wate of my time and my money simultaneously. And I like my time and my money so I don’t waste either of them if I don’t have to

Also, not using the xG data conn. of my phone when I can (including when I’m roaming abroad, when I always disable it) saves me a lot (a lot!) of money.

Anyway, phone capabilities are important to me, including saving as much battery as possible for phone functions.

Using a cell phone for primary net access would be HORRID. Using a cell phone for primary email access would be HORRID. Using a cell phone for work would be impossible. Using a cell phone for an entertainment platform beyond playing music is very lame — for example, who watches movies on a screen that can fit in your hand?

Admittedly everyone has different needs & wants, but the idea that a cell phone is a good general purpose computing platform is ridiculous unless you barely do anything outside of maybe texting, literally.

I’m not so sure of that. Look at (say, on Alexa) the top websites that people visit: Google (but check top searches on Google – it’s often used not for “serious browsing” but as an URL field of sorts, bookmark for the following), Facebook / Twitter / blogs, Youtube, some news from BBC or Yahoo, quickly checking something on Wiki, dictionary.

Most of those are quite fine on mobile phones (not only smartphones http://www.opera.com/smw/2011/11/ ), especially when used casually and/or as an “app” (why not? Arguably it even works better for some) or RSS feed.

Using a cell phone for primary email access would be HORRID.

Not so, IMHO… in particular, Android Gmail client is very decent (maybe the most decent way to access Gmail right now, with ongoing turmoil of Gmail browser UI), very fine for checking and replying to most emails – but then, I find that most don’t require lengthy replies (if at all), only few (which means it’s better to type them on a PC – but I wouldn’t call that “primary email access”)

Using a cell phone for work would be impossible.

Oh, and email is often a large part of “work” nowadays (but yeah, dividing tasks between PC and mobile at the same time, as convenient, typically makes more sense)

Using a cell phone for an entertainment platform beyond playing music is very lame — for example, who watches movies on a screen that can fit in your hand?

But then you yourself use it for games

(I’d also argue it’s decent for most YT stuff “to fill idle time” – even TV series or some not “crucial” movie flick during commute)

Overall, quite a bit beyond texting. And hey, the way PCs are used already changed few times.

If we are calling smartphones ‘computers’ then by all means all types of videogame consoles should earn the moniker ‘computers’ aswell.

Well, Sony did indeed try to market the PS3 as a “supercomputer”. And originally it had a version of Linux that allowed for “general purpose computing”, so I guess it was a “general purpose computer” before they removed “other OS”.

And game consoles have browsers now, so I guess they could run web apps, and be “general purpose” to that extent.

But I don’t really consider smartphones to be “computers” as such (although they are, literally). I don’t consider smartphones to be in the same market as desktop or laptop computers. I consider them to be rather PDAs with communication capability.

Agreed, also to me the term ‘computer’ equals a general purpose computer not particularly focused on one task and able to perform practically any computer related task, hence I have a hard time labeling Smartphones as ‘computers’, to me they are phones on which you can also play games.

If we are calling smartphones ‘computers’ then by all means all types of videogame consoles should earn the moniker ‘computers’ aswell.

Do define “computer” properly for me, please? Because I just don’t see the difference myself anymore. I mean, atleast on Android phones you can run a full-blown Ubuntu-installation, meaning that you can do more-or-less anything that you could do on a low-power desktop. The major difference is the form factor, but that doesn make or break something as a computer.

That’s the point, Apple couldn’t bite MS stronghold on PCs so they redefined computing needs of common people. Whatever you call the device in your pocket it does lots of tasks usually associated with Windows PCs good enough and adds permanent mobility and connectivity.

From hindsight Wintel machines have allays been clunky, over-complex office workstations shoehorned to serve new-found digital lives of common people, because of lockin and misconception that everybody needs tools as powerful as MS Office on their homes.

As both internet and gaming got independent from MS, conditions for innovation have been restored.

I for one do not understand this rush for smartphones. Probably due to the fact that I spend greater part of the day behind a fully connected desktop computer and really have no need to read email nor browse the web on the tiny phone. Hence my phone is very modest Samsung Monte although it has a touch screen and you can install 3 wallpapers from its app store (read specialized website) but thats about it. All I need from the device is a strong solid call quality and a long battery.

The previous phone (HTC S730) died due to keys stopped working and that why I prefferred touch screen and a phone before that, the Nokia 6150 which was absolutely gorgeous phone, started to switch itself off at arbitrary moments and that was unacceptable.

I totally skip and ignore the smartphone phenomena, although at work I develop apps for Android.

A fully connected desktop computer still lacks features a smartphone has, though: GPS and a camera. Those two things (and to a lesser degree gyroscopes and sensors) create lots new possibilities that you don’t get from a laptop.

I for one do not understand this rush for smartphones. Probably due to the fact that I spend greater part of the day behind a fully connected desktop computer and really have no need to read email nor browse the web on the tiny phone.

So because you have no need for a smartphone you can’t imagine that other people could have a need for it. Most people are not in front of a connected computer all day. So at all those times where you don’t have that desktop you use the smartphone. That adds up to 99% for most people.

I can’t speak for everyone, but I use a smartphone for a few things. The most important is checking email. It’s also quite useful for social networking.

Whenever I’m on a break or at lunch, I use my phone to surf, check mail etc. This way I don’t use computing resources at work. It prevents them from logging or seeing my traffic. It also makes me feel better as I’m not stealing bandwidth for personal stuff.

I also find things like searching for take out places and a GPS in my pocket quite useful. It replaces the need for a car device as I can simply pull over and figure out where i need to go.

It’s also a replacement for my iPod.

I actually use it at work to test our websites from external network to make sure the security is working (we do ip based auth for our stuff)

Android tablets don’t really do it for me, and I’m too much of a GNU/Neckbeard to accept iOS, but Open WebOS on a nice ARM tablet and a keyboard could replace my laptop for 90% of what I do with it – browse the web, listen to music, watch videos, read PDFs and ebooks, light gaming, and SSH in to other systems to get real work done. I could very easily see replacing my big laptop and netbook with a WebOS tablet and a desktop.

Sure, when Windows 8 tablets actually exist. I don’t think Windows 8 (or more specifically Metro) will take off very well on general-purpose desktops or laptops, but it might just work on tablets. Still, it’s difficult to project anything about Win 8 tablets when not a single one yet exists to judge.

Intel tablets are always going to suck compared to ARM because they’re either heavier, hotter, and more battery hungry, or they’re laughably underpowered (Medfield).

EDIT: I despise Windows in all its forms. I put up with it for years, but ditched it forever after Vista. Windows 7 is just Vista on a diet with a theme pack, and Windows 8 is just Windows 7 with metro tacked on and abhorrent OEM requirements (Secure Boot, etc.).

I don’t believe Windows is a strong consumer brand. Windows just has strong lock-in. PC’s don’t sell because of the Windows branding.

There is a myth that software platforms only have room for a few top platforms. This is just a overly simplistic of the market. The limits of platform adoption are on how willing a consumer is to buy new hardware/software. That depends mostly on what the product is capable of and how valuable that is to a consumer.

If HP came out with a iPhone that was the same only it was more durable with longer battery life and better customer support. That could sell.

If RIM came out with a new software platform that was similar (but incompatible) to iOS only with software that was better than iOS software is some meaningful way, like filled some purpose iOS software didn’t. That could sell.

I don’t believe Windows is a strong consumer brand. Windows just has strong lock-in. PC’s don’t sell because of the Windows branding.

It’s incredibly naive to think that Windows massive market share has nothing to do with their branding and popularity with consumers. While it may come as a shock to you, many people have a great experience with their Windows system. Whether you like it or not, Microsoft makes good products that people _choose_ to purchase. Microsoft didn’t achieve their vast success by strong-arming the industry, and by forcing consumers to spend their money in some kind of pc shakedown.

If you have a person looking to buy a new computer, and he’s presented with two options, both using identical hardware. One of which has Windows branding, the other with some other branding on it. Which do you think he’ll buy? Chances are heavily in favor of the Windows branded system.

None of what you wrote proves that PC’s sell because of Windows branding. Also, you’re a blind fool if you believe there’s real choice in the PC market.

Wrong. The tons of people who are happy with their Windows systems, and have purchased/upgraded based on that proves the Windows brand is strong with consumers. And, you’re a blind fool if you think there _isn’t_ real choice in the pc market. Today, right now, you can go buy a computer running Windows, OSX, or Linux. Windows may be purchased separately, OSX may be purchased separately, and Linux may be purchased or downloaded free-of-charge.

What exactly do you think choice is since you don’t seem to agree with what the definition of choice is:

choice [chois] noun, adjective, choicÂ·er, choicÂ·est.

noun

1. an act or instance of choosing; selection: Her choice of a computer was made after months of research. His parents were not happy with his choice of friends.

2. the right, power, or opportunity to choose; option: The child had no choice about going to school.

Maybe on your planet where computers aren’t used to run applications but we earthlings use computers precisely for their ability to run applications. So down here choice is thought of in those terms.

Are you actually suggesting OSX and Linux aren’t options because they’re not capable of running applications? As naive as you seem to be, I think I still gave you too much credit because that’s completely absurd. The average computer user is able to do all the same things whether they’re using Windows, OSX, or Linux….and they’re able to do them with nearly the same effort. You thinking otherwise makes me wonder if you’ve ever even used a computer before.

Son, I am disappoint. No, honestly, I was expecting better from you. AutoCAD doesn’t run on Commodore 64, Raspberry Pi, and many others, yet they are fully Turing-complete general-purpose computers. Or do you deny that?

The fallacy of your comment is in equating the ability to run a specific piece of software with being a computer instead of equating the ability of running certain kinds of operations with something being a computer.

The OP was basically arguing that we have reached some kind of dream OS wonderland in which OSs do not matter any more and people can pick whatever computer form factor they like depending on the task at hand.

I wish this was true. But it seems to me that it isn’t. Look at the modern computer landscape, and you will see nothing but platform lock-in and a growing amount of arbitrary and artificial limitations on what developers and users can do. There used to be a time where OSs mattered because they determined what you can do. Nowadays, OSs still matter, but because they determine what you cannot do.

You need to use Windows because your work software won’t work on something else. You need to use a large laptop or desktop even if you don’t need it, because netbooks and tablet computers are arbitrarily restricted by OS manufacturers to the status of toys and content consumption device. You need to keep the OS that came bundled with your phone or tablet because some idiot locked down your bootloader. And so on.

Its incredibly naive to think that just because Microsoft is ubiquitous, that a consumer will choose it over something else just by having two computers side by side. If that were the case, Apple would have no market share at all.

Oh, and Microsoft has gotten where it is today by doing exactly as you say they didn’t do. They force people to buy their product by forcing OEM’s to produce only for their product.

It’s incredibly naive to think that Windows massive market share has nothing to do with their branding and popularity with consumers. While it may come as a shock to you, many people have a great experience with their Windows system. Whether you like it or not, Microsoft makes good products that people _choose_ to purchase. Microsoft didn’t achieve their vast success by strong-arming the industry, and by forcing consumers to spend their money in some kind of pc shakedown.

You make good points, but I must disagree in one area. Windows, itself, is not a strong consumer brand. I work tech support and I can tell you from experience that the majority of average consumers do not really know what Windows is. They know who Microsoft are, and they know about Microsoft Office when thinking about them. The name “Windows” doesn’t mean much to them one way or the other. They just know they click the little picture things and these boxes come up (I’m actually quoting someone here). The only time they know what Windows is happens to be when an error comes up and then they start ranting about how much this “Windows” thing sucks (another quote) because they went and installed a Virus. In this way, the Windows brand might actually be a liability not because the product itself is bad, but because the only time the consumer sees the word “Windows” is when something goes wrong. If I were Microsoft, I would’ve taken the Metro brand name (Metro Phone, for example) and capitalized on distancing it from the Windows name. Sad as it may seem, the name Windows to most people means viruses and annoying pop-ups, while the name Microsoft triggers a love/hate reaction mostly due to Office rather than Windows. Note that I’m not saying the Windows name isn’t present everywhere throughout the product, I’m just noting when and where people take notice of the word.

If you have a person looking to buy a new computer, and he’s presented with two options, both using identical hardware. One of which has Windows branding, the other with some other branding on it. Which do you think he’ll buy? Chances are heavily in favor of the Windows branded system.

Actually, most people will buy what looks familiar. They see a Windows desktop that looks similar to what they already have, they’ll go with that. As I said, the name Windows doesn’t mean “amazing” to most average consumers. The same actually applies to Apple computers. Someone who uses Macs, if they like them, are more likely to buy a Mac than a PC due to familiarity with the product. By contrast, if someone has had bad experiences with Windows, they might buy one of those “Mac things” and try that instead.

i agree, people don’t go out and buy windows they buy a PC, Mac’s haven’t traditionally sold as much when compared next to windows because of the cost and they haven’t been promoted as much.

Working in tech support people to this day don’t understand Windows from Office, to them it’s all the same. It’s the same as you don’t know what software your car is running, people buy a computer to get from A to B, they don’t know whats running under the hood.

The post pc era is has been brought about as you and others have said an era in which the OS is no longer relevent, the only thing that is relevent is access to the services you need and for the vast majority it’s the ability to access the internet, compose emails, edit pictures, listen to music and perhaps create some documents. When you boil these requirements down, the possibilities become far greater and the smartphone suddenly becomes quite a useful device.

I think that even “ignorant” PC consumers know enough that even if they don’t really understand operating systems, they’d steer clear of a non-Windows PC, because most are educated enough to know that it wouldn’t run the programs they want to run. That’s why Apple marketshare flattened and attempts at getting people to buy cheap Linux PCs fell flat.

It’s not about Windows branding, but about the stigma of a non-Windows PC. Just like people may not know much about cars, but word on the street is that the car from Yugoslavia sucks and you shouldn’t buy one even if it’s cheap. (Hey, finally an apt OS car analogy!)

It’s not about Windows branding, but about the stigma of a non-Windows PC. Just like people may not know much about cars, but word on the street is that the car from Yugoslavia sucks and you shouldn’t buy one even if it’s cheap. (Hey, finally an apt OS car analogy!)

Your mentioning of cars brings up an interesting point: Korean and Japanese car and electronics manufacturers had really poor reputation in the beginning but how they even manage to turn that image around is a much bigger achievement than some Apple apologists claim about Apple’s recent success.

the car from Yugoslavia sucks and you shouldn’t buy one even if it’s cheap. (Hey, finally an apt OS car analogy!)

Well, unless that car is your only option (and there were times, when your only option was one type of car and you had to wait months to get it). You could find quite a number people here who could tell you all about how and why Windows s*cks for a lot of reasons, and they still keep buying it because of it being the only real option for a lot of scenarios.

While a computer and a cell phone share certain or similar capabilities, they are not the same thing and the author is making a mistake by ignoring the distinction. To say smartphones are the ‘computer of choice’ I think is the result of that.

With a little further investigation, the author would find people are not replacing their computers with their cell phone. They are merely buying upgraded cell phones. That’s a huge difference.

The article also completely ignores the fact that while cell phone sales may have increased, computer sales have remained consistent. If the author was correct in his assumption, you would see a decline in computer sales as a result of the increase in phone sales. But you don’t see that.

He’s comparing apples to oranges more than apples to apples. But, that’s typical when it comes to technology.

an for most people, computers have always been a method to connect to the web and interact…so for many of those people, they can and do forgo a PC in favor of a smartphone/tablet.

Yes, some people do. Nobody ever suggested otherwise. However, while people are in fact purchasing cell phones more now than ever, they aren’t replacing their computers with them. The numbers don’t lie and there’s still consistent new computer sales in the hundreds of millions every year. If cell phones really were replacing or killing off desktops, that wouldn’t remain true.

So as much as people would like to think computing on handheld devices is destroying desktops, the facts show that theory to be nonsense.

So as much as people would like to think computing on handheld devices is destroying desktops, the facts show that theory to be nonsense.

I agree.

People are currently switching from “mobile phone and PC” to “smart phone and PC”. The current smart phone growth will stop when everyone that wants a smart phone already has one.

I’d also predict that more smartphones will be sold per year than PCs, because people replace them more often. As a rough average, most of the people I know replace their mobile/smart phone every 18 months (because it didn’t float, got smashed, got lost, got stolen, stopped working) but keep their PC for 5 or more years. Higher sales figures alone doesn’t mean that smartphones have become the preferred computer of the masses (but may only mean they’re cheap and fragile).

Finally, I predict that the hardware for average smartphones won’t improve much – instead of getting faster and more powerful they’ll just get cheaper and more disposable, with better battery life.

it is certainly plausible that within 5 years portable OS devices will account for at least 3/4 of all consumer “personal computers” (not enterprise). and that this market will be split three ways between Android, iOS, and Windows OS’s. which would leave Windows desktop + mobile OS with somewhat less than half of the market overall. not bad for Microsoft.

but that is measured by unit sales. whereas measured by sales revenues – arguable the most important metric – that would leave Apple with well over half the total revenues. which is great for Apple. Apparently Samsung will do well too. but some OEM’s won’t be able to survive, while former leaders Nokia and Sony will just limp along.

Recently, two or three sources have reported that Windows Phone now has over 90k apps.

I think the “Windows” brand is a liability rather than an asset. Not because I think Windows sucks, but because the name “Windows Phone” conveys the idea of a phone with the desktop Windows UI (which is what Windows Mobile was (kind of, though not as much as the old PocketPCs)), which is not what folks want on a handset. Generally, folks like the WP7 UI once they use it, but I think that right now the name “Windows Phone” serves as a barrier to getting folks to try it.

BUT, if Windows 8 is received well by the public, then the brand could become an asset, since I think folks would be more accepting or even desirous of the Windows 8 UI on a handheld device.

Recently, two or three sources have reported that Windows Phone now has over 90k apps.

I think the “Windows” brand is a liability rather than an asset. Not because I think Windows sucks, but because the name “Windows Phone” conveys the idea of a phone with the desktop Windows UI (which is what Windows Mobile was (kind of, though not as much as the old PocketPCs)), which is not what folks want on a handset. Generally, folks like the WP7 UI once they use it, but I think that right now the name “Windows Phone” serves as a barrier to getting folks to try it.

BUT, if Windows 8 is received well by the public, then the brand could become an asset, since I think folks would be more accepting or even desirous of the Windows 8 UI on a handheld device.

It’s only a liability because the only comparison that people have is <= Windows 7. The evolved interface of Windows 8 — tiles, etc — will change that perception.

Call me crazy, but 10 years back it was “Linux will rule the world in 10 years!” and now everyone says “Android” when Android is actually Linux.

Words have power, and behold: Linux is on top, as the endless multitude of prophets hath spake. And now it’s about “which mobile distro?” when it used to not matter which Linux it was so long as it was Linux.

One thing though, google isn’t out to lock everyone in. In a way they released android with the desire to free manufacturers from the hard lockin. They just want to make money off services and advertising. Nothing is stopping anyone from takin android and cutting google out. In fact I believe the amazon kindle does just that.

I think the graphs are horribly wrong. They portray a picture where supposedly mobile device are replacing the traditional desktop/laptop rather than supplementing them.

Whoever has a smartphone of some sort probably also has another computer, most likely with Windows. Two parallel markets, no need to bunch them together. And it’s wrong to bunch them together.

So saying that Windows market will drop to 50% in a few years is ridiculous. It is like counting all Linux appliances are Linux installations and claiming a huge market share for Linux. Yes, if you count all routers, TVs and such, then Linux has billions of installed devices worldwide.

Huge sales for smartphones cannot be compared to desktop sales, either. You buy a desktop for 5-6 years, while people tend to replace smartphones every 2 years. Smartphones are also much cheaper, so 1 to 1 ratio is wrong, again. And never forget the fact that people still use both or complement their overall computing experience with both types.

Therefore, it’s not so much market pie sharing, it’s making the pie bigger – or even adding another pie to the market.

No, the graphs do not indicate that smartphones are replacing the traditional laptop/desktop. They merely represent the total market for consumer operating systems. Since the addition of smartphones to this market place, Windows is indeed dropping to 50% market share.

As you say, “it’s not so much market pie sharing, it’s making the pie bigger – or even adding another pie to the market” — which is exactly what the graphs show.

Sorry to hijack, but I feel it is an informative post. I have read many past articles about Windows 8, and articles about smartphones, and I have come to one realisation.

I have come to realise is that the PC is not dead, but it is a market that Microsoft cannot have any substantial profit growth for their business.

So what do they do? See potential in smartphones, partner with a name recognised worldwide, Nokia. Sell smartphones.

Sounds simple but it isn’t. They need developers, developers, developers, and of course a userbase.

My thoughts are for years Microsoft have tried to be #1 in phones, but I couldn’t care less about the advancements in the windows mobile platform,because even though there are apps for it, I would come to a point where some app isn’t ported, and I would need it.

As painful as I currrently find Win8 to use on the desktop it is a necessity for Microsoft to succeed in the mobile space.

My thoughts are if win8 is a vista of sorts currently, it could have the potential to be the OS for any hardware platform because usability will be improved over time, and the program’s will be there as well.

The smartphone numbers will certainly overtake desktop/laptop PC ones. Especially in developing world this will become a “PC” platform of choice, all in one.

In this case, for some time there will not be a dominating platform, “new Windows”, although I predict Android to become #1 computing OS in the world by some margin (in the process bringing Linux kernel to that long deserved place). A refreshment compared to times when we thought this is it and MS owns the market. Interesting how a new technology revolution (the one again ignited by Steve Jobs!) is now rapidly changing. Last time it was IBM, this time it’s another behemoth – Microsoft that was taken off guard.

Microsoft wasn’t taken off guard. They conscientiously chose to not participate in cannibalizing their lucrative market. From their view they were top dog. As long as the market didn’t change they could maximize profits…make tons of money with almost no effort. In fact it was easier for them to interfere with emerging markets than to try to make the investment required to foster that market.

The old saying…if you’re not willing to cannibalize your own business, others will do it for you.

I think it’s a bit ludicrous to claim that people are buying smartphones *instead* of (the often cheaper!) laptops or desktops. There will always be a need for a more “usable” machine in the household – one with a large monitor (OK, maybe a touchscreen version then they come down in price), keyboard/mouse, ability to add further peripherals and a lot more RAM/CPU/disk power.

I seriously doubt there are many smartphone users out there who only have that phone and no other computer in their household, hence I think smartphones are moving to replace the “second computer” in your household, whether that’s an old laptop or a netbook or something that you’ve generally tired of using for whatever reason.

However, in those replacement cases, a tablet is a more obvious choice now I guess, so smartphones do seem to occupy a slightly weird position – not quite good enough to be your primary computer and lacking some useful physical features (large screen, keyboard, mouse) to make it a worthy replacement for a laptop or netbook.

Personally, I have one of everything to see what I think about it – a desktop, a laptop, a netbook, a tablet and a smartphone. At home, I use the desktop the most and on the move, it’s actually the netbook (an old Mini 9 souped up a bit) that’s by the best portable device I’ve got. The tablet (an HP Touchpad with CM9) and smartphone (an ancient HTC Desire) are the least productive devices of all of them – very much consumer devices and pretty useless for actually creating content on them.

Hmm, wouldn’t it be really interesting to have Plan 9 based smart phones?

Maybe, if the big companies move on to smart phones

Yeah, Plan 9 on smartphones from (inevitably) big companies …I’m not sure we should want that (considering how they already want to own and track everything, and the perfect for that very “network transparent” architecture of Plan 9)

People buy “smart” phones in order to replace an older cellphone. Cellphones traditionally sell in much higher numbers than computers, because they are short-lived, cheap, and definitely single-user (whereas it is common for a family to share a desktop).

So… How are all these graphs which compare cellphone sales to computer sales worth anything ? Just because phones are now capable of running fart apps does not make them suddenly more suitable for typical office tasks such as word processing or accounting, does it ?

Cellphones […] are short-lived, cheap, and definitely single-user (whereas it is common for a family to share a desktop)

Not “definitely” – in developing world it’s quite common for, say, a family to share one mobile phone (that’s why more recent S30 Nokia phones have few available “accounts” each with its own contacts, and IIRC also costs tracker).

Generally, among more impoverished demographics, phones

tend be longer-lived, chiefly because they are relatively expensive.

As for comparison with PCs… there are over 5.6 billion mobile subscriptions by now (yes, among those are people having more than one active SIM card; but OTOH there are those shared mobiles that I mentioned, partially compensating – either way, it’s probably safe to assume 5 billion people).

And last I heard, there are ~1.2 billion PCs, used by ~2 billion people.

So it’s probably beyond the differences in sales dynamics – especially once (probably) ~Android handsets get firmly into sub-100$ regions.

And I don’t think that many people are very interested in “typical office tasks such as word processing or accounting” (who knows how much of those tablets might grab, eventually) – but it’s not uncommon to access the web only from mobile, especially in developing world http://www.opera.com/smw/2012/03/

Maybe that’s what at least such places will largely settle on, mostly leapfrogging PCs (just like they did with wired telephone networks)

As for comparison with PCs… there are over 5.6 billion mobile subscriptions by now (yes, among those are people having more than one active SIM card; but OTOH there are those shared mobiles that I mentioned, partially compensating – either way, it’s probably safe to assume 5 billion people).

And last I heard, there are ~1.2 billion PCs, used by ~2 billion people.

So it’s probably beyond the differences in sales dynamics – especially once (probably) ~Android handsets get firmly into sub-100$ regions.

I was just arguing that PCs and cellphones are different devices with use cases that do not overlap much, and that as such their sale figures should probably not be compared.

For a metaphor, this feels like arguing that microwave ovens are eating traditional ovens’ lunch because they sell more. However, they are two different devices. Ovens are for cooking foods, microwaves are for warming it up. The two devices only compete on side functionality, not in their core area of competence. As such, it’s not that microwaves are better than ovens, but rather that people are more into microwave functionality than oven functionality (probably due to the sad state of cooking knowledge in our societies). Which is another debate entirely.

It so happens that in the past, some people used to warm up food in an oven (and to browse basic, phone-compatible websites on a PC). Then they realized that they could do it more efficiently with a cheap microwave (a “smart” phone), and they had the money, so they bought one. But in the end, the microwave has not replaced their oven. It is just a side device that complements it. If you want to cook anything more tasty than a yoghourt cake (which is akin to any serious content creation job on a computer), you will still need an oven. You just do not try to use it for things that it is not good at anymore. Which is a good thing.

(And then, there are tablets, which could be the computer equivalent of microwave+oven combos as a killer do-it-all device for students… Except that their limited OSs make them more like a microwave on steroids that warms stuff up superfast but is still unable to bake the most basic chocolate cake… Okay, okay, I stop here)

Well I was just going on further about how (when looking at “all these graphs which compare cellphone sales to computer sales”) it’s more than just “Cellphones traditionally sell in much higher numbers than computers, because they are short-lived, cheap, and definitely single-user” – mobile OS numbers are/will swamp PC also because their market is huge, not only because of sales dynamics (short-lived, cheap – which anyway isn’t always the case, together with “single-user”, which I also pointed out)

And you came up with a very poor metaphor …kitchen analogy?! While we have the gold standard of car analogies: in this case, say, cars vs. bikes (also cars and bikes …or even a folding bike kept in the trunk of a car, as a combo)

And I don’t think that many people are very interested in “typical office tasks such as word processing or accounting” (who knows how much of those tablets might grab, eventually)

I still find it hard to believe that people would have justified the purchase of a computer just by “I will use it to go on Facebook”. Most of the computers which I see at the house of relatives are either work tools or children toys, which are used as web terminals because they can also do that. But I may have weird relatives :/

As a bored iPhone owner, I kind of started looking around. I see 3 options… None are ideal.

1) android. Except, all the high end handsets are too big. Like, stupidly big. I was standing in a store comparing various handsets, and the HTC One X, Galaxy 3s, Whatvever the Sony Experia is, are all HUGE! Did I mention my utter dislike for Java?

2) Nokia Lumia 800 – played with it. Loved th OS. Having previously written off Windows phone, this is a true 180. Then I looked in to developing apps for it. $99??? Um.. No.

3) Nokia N9 – looks as good as the Lumia 800, but try finding one. Development s pretty sweet though.

So, unless Apple pull magic rabbits out of hats for he next handset, Windows phone looks to be te direction. Just needs hacked phone to allow side lading of apps.

From a pure development perspective, Windows phone is ahead of both Android and N9 in every way except for the lock in. The UI is really nice. Really fresh. I honestly hated the concept of it before I played with it. Most carriers will give me a free handset on a comparable tariff to my current one on a 2 year contract. I can buy a sim unlocked one for under Â£350! Where as N9 is at east Â£30 more than the best price I can find. And the N9 is not carred by anyone in te UK.

Ahead? I dislike MS proprietary and non portable solutions. Nothing ahead there. No OpenGL (ES), no native code compilers. Simply a waste of time. If you care about what’s ahead – you won’t even bother with Windows Phone.

Carried you mean contract plans which offer the device with discount? I never use those. I get devices for full price and get non contract plans. It always comes out cheaper, of course if you plan to use the device long enough. Those who change handsets every year will probably prefer contract options.

I pointed out both issues. Besides the lock in, I don’t find non portable solutions without a native code option to be “nice” from a pure developer’s perspective. To be nice, the platform needs to support OpenGL and to have native code option for high performance applications. Supporting mature cross platform UI toolkits adds to the niceness as well. Windows Phone fails in all of those.

But those don’t really matter for bedroom coder (what the implied use seemed to be; even likely mostly apps “for oneself”) – somebody like that won’t aim for some high-perf multiplatform engine; “little” games and apps are fine with XNA, and it’s not like such apps are very portable when starting from SDK of any platform.

Plus, in fact, such little projects might actually, possibly, be most portable when starting from WP7 and its stack – there is a project allowing easy porting to iOS and Android (and more), with existing examples in their appstores

But “bedroom coding” was clearly the context (how henderson101 grumbles about $99 fee and wishes for side-loading, and how he cares about prices of handsets; there’s nothing wrong with that BTW, don’t be so harsh on bedroom coders*)

Anyway, I thought you of all people would welcome with open hands an open source project which brings greater interoperability.

Bonus: it sort of “rips off” MS by basing it all on their XNA – which is really nice, especially in context of pet projects …oh and for such, MS trolling hardly matters (but I don’t think they will go after it, MS realizes it needs more mind share & goodwill of devs*)

Well, look at what happened with Java. Sun was OK with its wide usage. It didn’t help when Oracle took it over and started attacking Android. Nothing guarantees that similar thing can’t happen with MS (or whoever will acquire their assets when they’ll fall apart).

I don’t think any option really guarantees safety from such – and anyway, those issues are fairly long-term, again outside of the scope here (bedroom, nice dev environment, now …also not bad as introductory, for example)

Investing time and effort into something is more rewarding (at least morally) if you know there are no corporate tentacles behind it. Of course nothing guarantees that some troll won’t pop out of nowhere, but when there is a clear knowledge of IP ownership by rather untrustworthy party (MS in this case), better to avoid it from the start.

(heck, isn’t the development of Linux kernel itself financed primarily by corporations?)

Some better than other, sure. But what primarily can be safely assumed – they will act in their self-interest, they’ll try to not sabotage their platforms. In this case, MS most likely won’t sabotage their very nice dev environment (which BTW, in context, helps to invest less time and effort, for comparable results, as far as pet projects go, while still learning a lot in the process… nothing bad about it, in relevant time spans and given that morality and reward are personal matters on ~bedroom level – indeed, they usually tend to be more predominant on such levels, less in ~work etc.)

I don’t think that’s a surprise. We’re talking about phones here after all. Since smartphones got fashionable, it’s becoming increasingly hard to buy a quality non-smart phone, and this will continue, so after a while it becomes fairly straightforward that smartphone sales will surpass computer sales (after all, there have and will be always more phones than general computers). This is just the trend that shows how regular phones get bit-by-bit replaced by smartphones.

I expect desktop PCs to last around 4-5 years. Smartphones get regularly upgraded every 1-2 years. It’s like the HD TV market or the mobile market in the early 2000s. This will fall off once we are at saturation.

The only silver lining is that mobile contracts are still around 2 years so a lot will still upgrade, but we will start seeing sim only contracts picking up again.

It looks like the author of this article has ignored the most used operating system in the world: TRON. Android and iOS are surpassing Windows in the media but Windows has been surpassed a long time ago by TRON, S40 and other OSes.

TRON is presumably more a specification than single OS, though. Anyway, when it comes to mobile phones, S40 is most likely on top (yeah, presumably not “smartphone OS” – but, if we would try to apply any resemblance of rigorous definition, S40 is more a smartphone than iPhone in its first year).

Maybe with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REX_OS as the closest contender? (apparently, perhaps, being the underlying RTOS at least in tons of Samsung “feature phones” – curiously, based on L4 microkernel)

(plus, such handsets are often handy for another reason – they typically include quite bright LED torch)

Though, really, plenty of people have old operational handsets in their drawers (there’s such decade-old Nokia 3510i in mine); at least one buddy of yours would likely hand one down for free.

That leaves just the cost of SIM card – preferably prepaid (on the prepaid offer that I use, an equivalent of less than 1.5â‚¬ keeps the account alive & able to make outgoing calls for a year, as long as there’s still some credit left of course – if not, one can still receive calls for over a year).

Well, if you’d decide to keep a mobile phone just for emergencies, even that isn’t necessary – any GSM phone will dial 112 even without a SIM card inside.